The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Written:Written January-February 1916Published:Printed in April 1916 in the magazineVorboteNo. 2.

      Printed in Russian in October 1916 inSbornik Sotsial-Demokrata, No. 1.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      UNKNOWN,[19xx],

      Moscow,Volume 22,

      pages143-156.Translated:UNKNOWN UNKNOWNTranscription:Richard BosTranscription\Markup:D. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      marx.org, 1998; marxists.org, 1999

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

1. Imperialism, Socialism, and the Liberation of Oppressed Nations

Imperialismis the highest
stage of development of capitalism. Capital in the advanced
countries has outgrown the boundaries of national states.  It has
established monopoly in place of competition, thus creating all
the objective prerequisites for the achievement of
socialism. Hence, in Western Europe and in the United States of
America, the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the
overthrow of the capitalist governments, for the expropriation of
the bourgeoisie, is on the order of the day. Imperialism is
forcing the masses into this struggle by sharpening class
antagonisms to an immense degree, by worsening the conditions of
the masses both economically—trusts and high cost of
living, and politically—growth of militarism, frequent wars,
increase of reaction, strengthening and extension of national
oppression and colonial plunder. Victorious socialism must achieve
complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the
complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of
oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free
political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all
their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after
its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and
establish relations with them on the basis of a free union and a
free union is a lying phrase without right to secession—such
parties would be committing treachery to socialism.

Ofcourse, democracy is also a form of state which must
disappear when the state disappears, but this will take place
only in the process of transition from completely victorious and
consolidated socialism to complete communism.

2. The Socialist Revolution and the Struggle for Democracy

Thesocialist revolution is not one single act, not one single
battle on a single front; but a whole epoch of intensified class
conflicts, a long series of battles on all fronts, i.e., battles
around all the problems of economics and politics, which can
culminate only in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It would
be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for
democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist
revolution, or obscure, or overshadow it, etc. On the contrary,
just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces
complete democracy, so the proletariat will be unable to prepare
for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided,
consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy.

Ifwould be no less mistaken to delete any of the points of the
democratic programme, for example, the point of
self-determination of nations, on the ground that it is
“infeasible,” or that it is “illusory” under imperialism.  The
assertion that the right of nations to self-determination cannot
be achieved within the framework of capitalism may be understood
either in its absolute, economic sense, or in the conventional,
political sense.

Inthe first case, the assertion is fundamentally wrong in
theory. First, in this sense, it is impossible to achieve such
things as labour money, or the abolition of crises, etc., under
capitalism. But it is entirely incorrect to argue that the
self-determination of nations is likewise infeasible.  Secondly,
even the one example of the secession of Norway from Sweden in
1905 is sufficient to refute the argument that it is
“infeasible” in this sense. Thirdly, it would be ridiculous to
deny that, with a slight change in political and strategical
relationships, for example, between Germany and England, the
formation of new states, Polish, Indian, etc, would be quite
“feasible” very soon. Fourthly, finance capital, in its striving
towards expansion, will “freely” buy and bribe the freest,most
democratic and republican government and the elected officials
of any country, however “independent” it may be. The domination
of finance capital, as of capital in general, cannot be
abolished by any kind of reforms in the realm of political
democracy, and self-determination belongs wholly and exclusively
to this realm. The domination of finance capital, however, does
not in the least destroy the significance of political democracy
as the freer, wider and more distinct form of class oppression
and class struggle. Hence, all arguments about the
“impossibility of achieving” economically one of the demands of
political democracy under capitalism reduce themselves to a
theoretically incorrect definition of the general and
fundamental relations of capitalism and of political democracy
in general.

Inthe second case, this assertion is incomplete and inaccurate,
for not only the right of nations to self-determination, but all
the fundamental demands of political democracy are “possible of
achievement” under imperialism, only in an incomplete, in a
mutilated form and as a rare exception (for example, the
secession of Norway from Sweden in 1905). The demand for the
immediate liberation of the colonies, as advanced by all
revolutionary Social-Democrats, is also “impossible of
achievement” under capitalism without a series of
revolutions. This does not imply, however, that Social Democracy
must refrain from conducting an immediate and most determined
struggle for all these demands—to refrain would merely be
to the advantage of the bourgeoisie and reaction. On the
contrary, it implies that it is necessary to formulate and put
forward all these demands, not in a reformist, but in a
revolutionary way; not by keeping within the framework of
bourgeois legality, but by breaking through it; not by confining
oneself to parliamentary speeches and verbal protests, but by
drawing the masses into real action, by widening and fomenting
the struggle for every kind of fundamental, democratic demand,
right up to and including the direct onslaught of the
proletariat against the bourgeoisie, i.e., to the socialist
revolution, which will expropriate the bourgeoisie. The
socialist revolution may break out not only in consequence of a
great strike, a street demonstration, a hunger riot, a mutiny in
the forces, or a colonial rebellion, but also in consequence of
any political crisis, like the Dreyfus
affair,[4]the Zabern
incident,[5]or in connection with a referendum on the secession
of an oppressed nation, etc.

Theintensification of national oppression under imperialism
makes it necessary for Social-Democracy not to renounce what the
bourgeoisie describes as the “utopian” struggle for the freedom
of nations to secede, but, on the contrary, to take more
advantage than ever before of conflicts arising also on this
ground for the purpose of rousing mass action and revolutionary
attacks upon the bourgeoisie.

3.
The Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination and its Relation to
Federation

Theright of nations to self-determination means only the right to independence
in a political sense, the right to free, political secession from the oppressing
nation. Concretely, this political, democratic demand implies complete
freedom to carry on agitation in favour of secession, and freedom to settle
the question of secession by means of a referendum of the nation that desires
to secede. Consequently, this demand is by no means identical with the
demand for secession, for partition, for the formation of small states.
It is merely the logical expression of the struggle against national oppression
in every form. The more closely the democratic system of state approximates
to complete freedom of secession, the rarer and weaker will the striving
for secession be in practice; for the advantages of large states, both
from the point of view of economic progress and from the point of view
of the interests of the masses, are beyond doubt, and these advantages
increase with the growth of capitalism. The recognition of self-determination
is not the same as making federation a principle. One may be a determined
opponent of this principle and a partisan of democratic centralism and
yet prefer federation to national inequality as the only path towards complete
democratic centralism. It was precisely from this point of view that Marx,
although a centralist, preferred even the federation of Ireland with England
to the forcible subjection of Ireland to the
English.[6]

Theaim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of
mankind into small states and all national isolation; not only to bring
the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them. And in order
to achieve this aim, we must, on the one hand, explain to the masses the
reactionary nature of the ideas of Renner and Otto Bauer concerningso-called
“cultural national
autonomy”[7]and, on the other hand, demand the liberation
of the oppressed nations, not only in general, nebulous phrases, not in
empty declamations, not by “postponing” the question until socialism is
established, but in a clearly and precisely formulated political programme
which shall particularly take into account the hypocrisy and cowardice
of the Socialists in the oppressing nations. Just as mankind can achieve
the abolition of classes only by passing through the transition period
of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so mankind can achieve the
inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period
of complete liberation of all the oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom
to secede.

4.
The Proletarian-Revolutionary Presentation of the Question of
the Self-Determination of Nations

Notonly the demand for the self-determination of nations but all the items
of our democratic minimum programme were advanced before us, as far back
as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, by the petty bourgeoisie.
And the petty bourgeoisie, believing in “peaceful” capitalism, continues
to this day to advance all these demands in a utopian way, without seeing
the class struggle and the fact that it has become intensified under democracy.
The idea of a peaceful union of equal nations under imperialism, which
deceives the people, and which the Kautskyists advocate, is precisely of
this nature. As against this philistine, opportunist utopia, the programme
of Social-Democracy must point out that under imperialism the division
of nations into oppressing and oppressed ones is a fundamental, most important
and inevitable fact.

Theproletariat of the oppressing nations cannot confine itself to the
general hackneyed phrases against annexations and for the equal rights
of nations in general, that may be repeated by any pacifist bourgeois.
The proletariat cannot evade the question that is particularly “unpleasant”
for the imperialist bourgeoisie, namely, the question of the frontiers
of a state that is based on national oppression. The proletariat cannot
but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within
the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle
for the right of self-determination means. The proletariatmust demand
the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that
“its own” nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism
will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity
between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible;
the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of self-determination
who maintain silence about the nations which are oppressed by “their” nation
and forcibly retained within “their” state will remain unexposed.

TheSocialists of the oppressed nations, on the other hand, must particularly
fight for and maintain complete, absolute unity (also organizational) between
the workers of the oppressed nation and the workers of the oppressing nation.
Without such unity it will be impossible to maintain an independent proletarian
policy and class solidarity with the proletariat of other countries in
the face of all the subterfuge, treachery and trickery of the bourgeoisie;
for the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations always converts the slogan
of national liberation into a means for deceiving the workers; in internal
politics it utilizes these slogans as a means for conduding reactionary
agreements with the bourgeoisie of the ruling nation (for instance, the
Poles in Austria and Russia, who entered into pacts with reaction in order
to oppress the Jews and the Ukrainians); in the realm of foreign politics
it strives to enter into pacts with one of the rival imperialist powers
for the purpose of achieving its own predatory aims (the policies of the
small states in the Balkans, etc.).

Thefact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist
power may, under certain circumstances, be utilized by another “Great”
Power in its equally imperialist interests should have no more weight in
inducing Social Democracy to renounce its recognition of the right of nations
to self-determination than the numerous case of the bourgeoisie utilizing
republican slogans for the purpose of political deception and financial
robbery, for example, in the Latin countries, have had in inducing them
to renounce
republicanism.[1]

5.
Marxism and Proudhonism on the National Question

Incontrast to the petty-bourgeois democrats, Marx regarded all democratic
demands without exception not as an absolute, but as a historical expression
of the struggle of the masses of the people, led by the bourgeoisie, against
feudalism. There is not a single democratic demand which could not serve,
and has not served, under certain conditions, as an instrument of the bourgeoisie
for deceiving the workers. To single out one of the demands of political
democracy, namely, the self determination of nations, and to oppose it to
all the rest, is fundamentally wrong in theory. In practice, the proletariat
will be able to retain its independence only if it subordinates its struggle
for all the democratic demands, not excluding the demand for a republic,
to its revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

Onthe other hand, in contrast to the Proudhonists, who “repudiated”
the national problem “in the name of the social revolution,” Marx, having
in mind mainly the interests of the proletarian class struggle in the advanced
countries, put into the forefront the fundamental principle of internationalism
and socialism, viz., that no nation can be free if it oppresses other
nations.[8]It was precisely from the standpoint of the interests of the revolutionary
movement of the German workers that Marx in 1898 demanded that victorious
democracy in Germany should proclaim and grant freedom to the nations that
the Germans were
oppressing.[9]It was precisely from the standpoint of the
revolutionary struggle of the English workers that Marx in 1869 demanded
the separation of Ireland from England, and added: “...although after the
separation there may come
federation.”[10]Only by putting forward this demand
did Marx really educate the English workers in the spiritof internationalism.
Only in this way was he able to oppose the revolutionary solution of a
given historical problem to the opportunists and bourgeois reformism, which
even now, half a century later, has failed to achieve the Irish “reform.”
Only in this way was Marx able—unlike the apologists of capital who shout
about the right of small nations to secession being utopian and impossible,
and about the progressive nature not only of economic but also of political
concentration—to urge the progressive nature of this concentration in
a non-imperialist manner, to urge the bringing together of the nations,
not by force, but on the basis of a free union of the proletarians of all
countries. Only in this way was Marx able, also in the sphere of the solution
of national problems, to oppose the revolutionary action of the masses
to verbal and often hypocritical recognition of the equality and the self-determination
of nations. The imperialist war of 1914-16 and the Augean stables of
hypocrisy of the opportunists and Kautskyists it exposed have strikingly
confirmed the correctness of Marx’s policy, which must serve as the model
for all the advanced countries; for all of them now oppress other
nations.[2]

6.
Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations

Inthis respect, countries must be divided into three main types:

First,the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United
States of America. In these countries the bourgeois, progressive, national
movements came to an end long ago. Everyone of these “great” nations oppresses
other nations in the colonies and within its own country. The tasks of
the proletariat of these ruling nations are the same as those of the proletariat
in England in the nineteenth century in relation to
Ireland.[3]

Secondly,Eastern Europe: Austria, the Balkans and particularly Russia.
Here it was the twentieth century that particularly developed the bourgeois-democratic
national movements and intensified the national struggle. The tasks of
the proletariat in these countries—in regard to the consummation of their
bourgeois-democratic reformation, as well as in regard to assisting the
socialist revolution in other countries—cannot be achieved unless it
champions the right of nations to self-determination. In this connection
the most difficult but most important task is to merge the class struggle
of the workers in the oppressing nations with the class struggle of the
workers in the oppressed nations.

Thirdly,the semi-colonial countries, like China, Persia, Turkey, and
all the colonies, which have a combined population amounting to a billion.
In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly
begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only
demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without
compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing
more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in
the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberationin these countries
and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.

7. Social-Chauvinism and Self Determination of Nations

Theimperialist epoch and the war of 1914-16 have particularly brought
to the forefront the task of fighting against chauvinism and nationalism
in the advanced countries. On the question of the self-determination of
nations, there are two main shades of opinion among the social-chauvinists,
i.e., the opportunists and the Kautskyists, who embellish the reactionary,
imperialist war by declaring it to be a war in “defence of the fatherland.”

Onthe one hand, we see the rather avowed servants of the bourgeoisie
who defend annexations on the ground that imperialism and political concentration
are progressive and who repudiate the right to self-determination on the
ground that it is utopian, illusory, petty-bourgeois, etc. Among these
may be included Cunow, Parvus and the extreme opportunists in Germany,
a section of the Fabians and the trade union leaders in England, and the
opportunists, Semkovsky, Liebman, Yurkevich, etc., in Russia.

Onthe other hand, we see the Kautskyists, including Vandervelde, Renaudel,
and many of the pacifists in England, France, etc. These stand for unity
with the first-mentioned group, and in practice their conduct is the same
in that they advocate the right to self-determination in a purely verbal
and hypocritical way. They regard the demand for the freedom of political
secession as being “excessive” (“zu viel verlangt”—Kautsky, in the Neue
Zeit, May 21, 1915); they do not advocate the need for revolutionary tactics,
especially for the Socialists in the oppressing nations, but, on the contrary,
they gloss over their revolutionary duties, they justify their opportunism,
they make it easier to deceive the people, they evade precisely the question
of the frontiers of a state which forcibly retains subject nations, etc.

Bothgroups are opportunists who prostitute Marxism and who have lost
all capacity to understand the theoretical significance and the practical
urgency of Marx’s tactics, an example of which he gave in relation to Ireland.

Thespecific question of annexations has become a particularly urgent
one owing to the war. But what is annexation! Clearly, to protest against
annexations implies either the recognition of the right of self-determination
of nations, or that the protest is based on a pacifist phrase which defends
the status quo and opposes all violence including revolutionary violence.
Such a phrase is radically wrong, and incompatible with Marxism.

8. The Concrete Tasks of the Proletariat in the Immediate Future

Thesocialist revolution may begin in the very near future. In that event
the proletariat will be faced with the immediate task of capturing power,
of expropriating the banks and of introducing other dictatorial measures.
In such a situation, the bourgeoisie, and particularly intellectuals like
the Fabians and the Kautskyists, will strive to disrupt and to hinder
the revolution, to restrict it to limited democratic aims. While all purely
democratic demands may—at a time when the proletarians have already begun
to storm the bulwarks of bourgeois power—serve, in a certain sense,
as a hindrance to the revolution, nevertheless, the necessity of proclaiming
and granting freedom to all oppressed nations (i.e., their right to
self-determination)
will be as urgent in the socialist revolution as it was urgent for the
victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, for example, in Germany
in 1848, or in Russia in 1905.

However,five, ten and even more years may pass before the socialist
revolution begins. In that case, the task will be to educate the masses
in a revolutionary spirit so as to make it impossible for Socialist chauvinists
and opportunists to belong to the workers’ party and to achieve a victory
similar to that of 1914-16. It will be the duty of the Socialists to explain
to the masses that English Socialists who fail to demand the freedom of
secession for the colonies and for Ireland; that German Socialists who
fail to demand the freedom of secession for the colonies, for the Alsatians,
for the Danes and for the Poles, and who fail to carry direct revolutionary
propaganda and revolutionary mass action to the field of struggle against
national oppression, who fail to take advantage of cases like the Zabern
incident to conduct widespread underground propaganda among the proletariat
of the oppressing nation, to organizestreet demonstrations and revolutionary
mass actions; that Russian Socialists who fail to demand freedom of secession
for Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, etc., etc.—are behaving like chauvinists,
like lackeys of the blood-and-mud-stained imperialist monarchies and the
imperialist bourgeoisie.

9.
The Attitude of Russian and Polish Social-Democracy and of the
Second International to Self-Determination

Thedifference between the revolutionary Social-Democrats of Russia and
the Polish Social-Democrats on the question of self-determination came
to the surface as early as 1903 at the congress which adopted the programme
of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, and which, despite the protest
of the Polish Social-Democratic delegation, inserted in that programme
point 9, which recognizes the right of nations to self-determination. Since
then the Polish Social Democrats have never repeated, in the name of their
Party, the proposal to delete point 9 from our programme, or to substitute
some other formulation for it.

InRussia—where no less than 57%, i.e., over 100,000,000
of the population, belong to oppressed nations, where those nations mainly
inhabit the border provinces, where some of those nations are more cultured
than the Great Russians, where the political system is distinguished by
its particularly barbarous and mediaeval character, where the bourgeois-democratic
revolution has not yet been completed—the recognition of the right of
the nations oppressed by tsarism to free secession from Russia is absolutely
obligatory for Social-Democracy in the interests of its democratic and
socialist tasks. Our Party, which was re-established in January 1912, adopted
a resolution in
1913[11]reiterating the right to self-determination and explaining
it in the concrete sense outlined above. The orgy of Great-Russian chauvinism
raging in 1914-16 among the bourgeoisie and the opportunist Socialists
(Rubanovich, Plekhanov, Nashe Dyelo, etc.) prompts us to insist on this
demand more strongly than ever and to declare that those who reject it
serve, in practice, as a bulwark of Great-Russian chauvinism and tsarism.
Our party declares that it emphatically repudiates all responsibility for
such opposition to the right of self-determination.

Thelatest formulation
of the position of Polish Social-Democracy on the national question (the
declaration made by Polish Social-Democracy at the Zimmerwald Conference)
contains the following ideas:

Thisdeclaration condemns the German and other governments which regard
the “Polish provinces” as a hostage in the forthcoming game of compensations
and thus “deprive the Polish people of the opportunity to decide its own
fate.” The declaration says: “Polish Social-Democracy emphatically and
solemnly protests against the recarving and partition of a whole country”
. . . It condemns the Socialists who left to the Hohenzollerns “the task
of liberating the oppressed nations.” It expresses the conviction that
only participation in the impending struggle of the revolutionary international
proletariat, in the struggle for socialism, “will break the fetters of
national oppression and abolish all forms of foreign domination, and secure
for the Polish people the possibility of all-sided, free development as
an equal member in a League of Nations.” The declaration also recognizes
the present war to be “doubly fratricidal” “for the Poles.” (Bulletin
of the International Socialist Committee, No. 2, September 27, 1915,
p. 15.)

Thereis no difference in substance between these postulates and the
recognition of the right of nations to self-determination except that their
political formulation is still more diffuse and vague than the majority
of the programmes and resolutions of the Second International. Any attempt
to express these ideas in precise political formulae and to determine whether
they apply to the capitalist system or only to the socialist system will
prove still more strikingly the error committed by the Polish Social-Democrats
in repudiating the self-determination of nations.

Thedecision of the International Socialist Congress held in London
in 1896, which recognized the self-determination of nations, must, on the
basis of the above-mentioned postulates, be supplemented by references
to:
(1) the particular urgency of this demand under imperialism;
(2) the politically conditional nature and the class content of all the
demands of political democracy, including this demand;
(3) the necessity of drawing a distinction between the concrete tasks
of the Social-Democrats in the oppressing nations and those inoppressed
nations;
(4) the inconsistent, purely verbal, and, therefore, as
far as its political significance is concerned, hypocritical
recognition of self-determination by the opportunists and Kautskyists;
(5) the actual identity of the chauvinists and those Social-Democrats,
particularly the Social-Democrats of the Great Powers (Great Russians,
Anglo-Americans, Germans, French, Italians, Japanese, etc.) who fail to
champion the freedom of secession for the colonies and nations oppressed
by “their own” nations;
(6) the necessity of subordinating the struggle for this demand, as well
as for all the fundamental demands of political democracy, to the immediate
revolutionary mass struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeois governments
and for the achievement of socialism.

Totransplant to the International the point of view of some of the
small nations—particularly the point of view of the Polish Social-Democrats,
who, in their struggle against the Polish bourgeoisie which is deceiving
the people with nationalist slogans, were misled into repudiating self-determination—would be a theoretical error. It would be the substitution of Proudhonism
for Marxism and, in practice, would result in rendering involuntary support
to the most dangerous chauvinism and opportunism of the Great Power nations.

Editorial Board of Sotsial-Democrat,
Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P.

Postscript. InDie Neue Zeitfor March 3,
1916, which has just appeared, Kautsky openly holds out the hand
of Christian reconciliation to Austerlitz, a representative of
the foulest German chauvinism, rejecting freedom of separation
for the oppressed nations of Hapsburg Austria but recognising it
forRussianPoland, as a menial service to Hindenburg
and Wilhelm II. One could not have wished for a better
self-exposure of Kautskyism!

[1]Needlessto say, to repudiate the right of self-determination on the
ground that logically it means “defence of the fatherland” would be quite
ridiculous. With equal logic, i.e., with equal shallowness, the social-chauvinists
of 1914-16 apply this argument to every one of the demands ofdemocracy
(for instance, to republicanism), and to every formulation of the struggle
against national oppression, in order to justify “defence of the fatherland.”
Marxism arrives at the recognition of defence of the fatherland, for example,
in the wars of the Great French Revolution and the Garibaldi wars in Europe,
and at the repudiation of defence of the fatherland in the imperialist
war of 1914-16, from the analysis of the specific historical circumstances
of each separate war, and not from some “general principle,” or some separate
item of a programme.
—Lenin

[2][HUGELENIN FOOTNOTE MISSING.]

Reference is often made–e.g., recently by the German  [...]Die Glocke[12][...]defend the latter.[13][...]

—Lenin

[3][HUGELENIN FOOTNOTE MISSING.]

In some small states which have kept out of [...]

—Lenin

[4][PLACEHOLDER.]

[5][PLACEHOLDER.]

[6][PLACEHOLDER.]

[7][PLACEHOLDER.]

[8][PLACEHOLDER.]

[9][PLACEHOLDER.]

[10][PLACEHOLDER.]

[12][PLACEHOLDER.]

[13][PLACEHOLDER.]

[11][PLACEHOLDER.]